remove_event_dispatcher

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantial value beyond them: the two-artifact destruction model, the idempotent no-op returning removed:false rather than erroring, the deliberate breaking of broadcast/bind nodes, and the PIE refusal behavior. This is rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling differentiation, then idempotency, then the consequence warning, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical explanation of delete_bp_variable's flaw is slightly dense. Appropriately sized for a destructive, multi-effect operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so precisely ({ blueprint_name, dispatcher_name, removed } with removed:false meaning). It covers scope, side effects, idempotency, and follow-up verification. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself carries a very detailed force description plus alias notes, so baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the removed field's semantics (false = nothing there, not a failure), which clarifies the output interpretation rather than the inputs. Modest added value over an already-complete schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (event dispatcher) and immediately clarifies the scope: it drops BOTH artifacts add_event_dispatcher created. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_bp_variable, which only removes the variable. An agent can select this tool over its nearest alternative without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative (delete_bp_variable) and the exact reason to prefer this one (it strands the signature graph). It also prescribes follow-up steps (compile_blueprint + get_compile_errors) and, via the force param, states the PIE precondition and the 'stop PIE and retry' workaround. Explicit when/when-not guidance throughout.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.